As Thomas mentioned, What happens if you add a new index on cCustoNo to your SQL Server table? Although indexes are nice and a lot of times they solve performance issues, keep in mind that an excesive number of indexes on a table would slow down the update process (since SQL Server needs to update all indexes as it updates the table.)

I don't think a stored procedure will make any difference in this scenario, though.

Something else to keep in mind: Don't expect SQL Server to perform faster than VFP, specially with 86000 rows. VFP is as fast as it gets for such load. SQL Server might give you a better performance when you get to GB of data.



>I am converting an application from vfp local table to sql server. I am not that knowledgeable about sql server performance tuning issues etc.
>
>On my pentium 4, 1.7 ghz w/ 512 megs of ram here is a comparison of the same update statement:
>
>my table sostrs has the same columns (about 95%) in both vfp and sql
>sostrs has 86000 rows
>
>vfp - ccustno has an index
>update sostrs set nreserved = 0 where CCUSTNO='ACME'
>550 rows updated in less than 1/10 of a second
>
>sql - index on primary key cuid
>update sostrs set nreserved = 0 where CCUSTNO='ACME'
>550 rows updated in 30 seconds (query performed in query analyzer)
>
>select * from sostrs where ccustno='ACME'
>
>takes 1/20 of a second in vfp and 0.00 in query analyzer
>
>
>Obviously vfp is orders of magnitude faster here. How do I tune my sql database for updating?